[governance] A false consensus is broken

[Paul Lehto]

But what is truly at issue is not a "fact" like whether someone physically
locomoted using their legs in order to leave a meeting.  "Walked out" has
both literal and figurative meaning, and Parminder - as was obvious to me
at least - intended the phrase in a figurative way.   This should be
especially obvious because it was a country (having no legs) that walked
out, not a specific person.

Since it appears some have appointed themselves inquisitors and made a
charge of inaccuracy against Parminder, I assert my neutrality (not even
sure why people are so hot on this), and *appoint myself judge and dismiss
this claim, *on the grounds that "walked out" has clearly figurative
meaning and the actual facts, even as alleged by the inquisitors, fit
without the broad meaning of "walked out". :)

The key word in Michael's question was "pre-occupation."  Why the *
pre-occupation* with this? It appears that question is unlikely to be
answered. And I won't rule on it either, since I don't have enough facts
before me to do so.  :)

Paul Lehto, J.D.

PS  If anyone has a problem with me being the self-appointed judge here,
then they should have a very similar problem with those who have accused
and also called this an open and shut case of "you can't have your own
facts" - which is just judgment in a different form, and a self-appointed
judgment at that.  In order to reach my "judgment" I've looked at the facts
in the light most favorable to the accused, given the rights of free
expression at stake.

All we really have here is what could be a valuable discussion about the
extent to which there was or wasn't a *figurative* walk out, and that could
be enlightening given the personal observations of some on the list but
which devolved into something more *ad hominem* in the nature of a game of
gotcha.


On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2012, at 10:13, michael gurstein wrote:
>
> > Or Parminder used/quoted colourful journalistic language in a
> journalistic medium...
> >
> > Anyway, why this pre-occupation with one perhaps infelicitous turn of
> (journalistic/diplomatic?) phrase ... Is this the US Congress/Fox News
> where a fairly comprehensible mispeak can lead to a total "gothcha"
> pre-occupation (the Benghazi "discussions") for purely political purposes
> to the exclusion of substantive debate...
>
>
> It is simple:
>
> Because you are not permitted to have your own facts.
>
> avri
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> To be removed from the list, visit:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
> For all other list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>      http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>
>


-- 
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI  49849
lehto.paul at gmail.com
906-204-4965 (cell)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121221/814f9272/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t